Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality assessment of the included studies

From: Progress in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis with high tibial osteotomy: a systematic review

Risk of bias for RCTs

Author

Year

Level of evidence

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

 Kyung-wook

2016

II

U

U

N

N

Y

N

N

 Raaij

2008

II

U

U

N

N

Y

N

N

 Lee

2018

II

Y

U

N

N

Y

N

N

 Bae

2016

II

Y

U

N

N

N

N

N

 Kim

2017

IV

U

U

N

N

Y

Y

N

Newcastle-Ottawa assessment for cohort studies

Author

Year

Level of evidence

Selection

Comparability

Outcome

1(**)

2(*)

3(**)

4(**)

1(**)

1(**)

2(*)

3(**)

 Chiu

1999

III

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

 Kuwano

2005

III

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

 Hohmanm

2005

III

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

 Giffin

2004

III

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

 Noyes

2005

IV

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

 Chen

2012

III

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

 Ozkaya

2008

III

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

 Altay

2016

III

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

 Terauchi

2002

III

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

 El-Assal

2010

II

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

 Park

2017

IV

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

Newcastle-Ottawa assessment for case-control studies

Author

Year

Level of evidence

Selection

Comparability

Outcome

1(**)

2(*)

3(**)

4(**)

1(**)

1(**)

2(*)

3(**)

 Turkmen

2017

III

*

*

  

*

*

*

*

 Nakamura

2017

III

*

*

  

*

*

*

*

  1. A study was awarded a maximum of one star (*) for each item within the selection and outcome domains. A maximum of two stars (**) was givenfor comparability. More stars meant a low ROB
Back to article page

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053